Public Bill Committee

[Frank Cook in the Chair]

Frank Cook: I am very conscious, gentlefolk, of the common aspirations of the Committee in so far as climate change is concerned. With that in mind, I have a serious announcement to make. I have good news and bad news. The good news is that this is the last occasion on which members of the Committee will have to suffer somewhat bilious interpretations of “Erskine May” and the pedantic application of Standing Orders by me. As of today, hon. Members will be left to the tender mercies of Mr. Peter Atkinson for the remainder of our proceedings. The bad aspect is the fact that in my experience in the position of Chairman, which is considerable, members of the Committee will not do justice to the proposals within the time set under the programme motion unless there is a major adjustment in presentation techniques. I offer that advice in the spirit of kindness and in the hope of helping to sort out our climatic problems.
I also want to point out that this is a maiden occasion for Minister Ruddock, so I ask members of the Committee to be gentle.

Schedule 1

The Committee on Climate Change

Joan Ruddock: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in schedule 1, page 46, line 17, leave out paragraph 16 and insert—

‘The Adaptation Sub-Committee
(1) There shall be a sub-committee of the Committee, to be known as the Adaptation Sub-Committee or, in Welsh, as yr Is-bwyllgor Addsau (referred to in this paragraph as “the ASC”).
(2) The ASC shall consist of—
(a) a person appointed by the national authorities to chair the ASC (“the ASC chair”), and
(b) not less than five other members appointed by the national authorities.
(3) The national authorities must—
(a) consult the chair before appointing the ASC chair, and
(b) consult the ASC chair before appointing the other members of the ASC.
(4) The ASC must provide the Committee with such advice, analysis, information or other assistance as the Committee may require in connection with the exercise of its functions under—
(a) section 37(1)(c) (advice etc to national authorities on adaptation to climate change),
(b) section [Advice of Committee on Climate Change on impact report] (advice on report on impact of climate change), or
(c) section [Reporting on progress in connection with adaptation] (reporting on progress in connection with adaptation).’.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 80, in schedule 1, page 46, line 31, at end insert—
‘( ) sustainable development.’.
Government amendments Nos. 11 and 14 to 18.

Joan Ruddock: It is a pleasure to work in Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Cook. I assure you, at the outset, that no coffee cups are in sight.
Forgive me if my speech seems a little lengthy, but I will certainly shorten what I have to say on future occasions. The amendments are the first of a comprehensive package of Government amendments to clarify the role of the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change. All members of the Committee know that the debate on climate change within and outside the House has focused mainly on mitigation, so I want to stress that the completely new adaptation duties and powers under the Bill show how seriously the Government take the need to adapt to climate change.
The original provisions have been strengthened as a result of the debate in the other place. We have also listened carefully to the arguments put forward about adaptation and agree that expert advice and scrutiny of how the Government assess the risks and implement the programme are important and useful. An adaptation sub-committee of the Climate Change Committee could have a useful role, and we therefore propose to accept the principle of the changes made in the other place to establish the sub-committee on adaptation issues. However, we believe that the committee should have a slightly different role from that set out in the Bill, and we have tabled amendments in that regard. We shall discuss the functions of the Committee on Climate Change when we deal with clauses 34 and 35.
Amendment No. 10 would establish an adaptation sub-committee or, in Welsh, an is-bwyllgor addsau of the Committee on Climate Change. First, it provides that the job of the sub-committee is to offer advice, analysis, information and other assistance to the Climate Change Committee. That reflects the fact that other amendments would give the committee the function of advising the national authorities and reporting to Parliament on adaptation issues. Secondly, the amendment would clarify the appointment processes and provides that not only the Secretary of State, but the national authorities should appoint the chair and members of the adaptation sub-committee. That is in line with the arrangements made for the Climate Change Committee itself and reflects the fact that it is to be a sub-committee of that body. Thirdly, the amendment provides for the sub-committee chair to be appointed from the committee’s core membership following consultation with its chairman and for at least five other members of the sub-committee to be appointed after consultation with the sub-committee chair. In practice, we expect sub-committee members to be appointed through open competition following Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments rules, and we will ensure that the overall membership will bring together a range of environmental, social and economic expertise.
Amendment No. 10 proposes to delete, and not replace, paragraph 16(3), which sets out a list of relevant criteria for the appointments. We are not making any equivalent provision for a number of reasons. First, adaptation policy is at an early stage of development. It is liable to change as we make further developments in science and as we develop better solutions to adapting sustainably. Putting a list in the Bill would prevent our changing the membership of the committee in coming decades. Secondly, the nature of adaptation and the work of the ASC, as it is currently defined, are broad, and a comprehensive list would be very long. Thirdly, for the first ASC we want to work with stakeholders, such as environmental NGOs and utility companies as well as a range of statutory bodies, to draw up a list of the expertise that is needed. We must also ensure that the ASC does not duplicate existing expert advice so that it provides value for money. The list will be agreed with the chair of the ASC. The ASC must be competent in all the pillars of sustainable development—the environment, including biodiversity, the economy and impacts on society. Those need to be grounded in robust science and in expertise in delivering the changes that we require.
Amendment No. 80 would add “sustainable development” to the list of expertise of the ASC. As I have already said, we do not believe that there should be any such list in the Bill. Therefore, we cannot accept the amendment. That is not to say that we do not support the principles behind the amendment. Let me assure the Committee that we are committed to taking a sustainable approach across our climate change policies and that we will deliver our adaptation programme in the context of sustainable development.
Clearly, the ASC must have a broad understanding of the context in which the Government work. Adapting to the impacts of climate change is itself a good example of actively practising sustainable development. We are working to embed sustainable adaptation across all Government policy areas as part of our adapting to climate change programme. The Bill commits the Government to deliver an adaptation programme that contributes to sustainable development. The environmental aspects of sustainable development and specific policies, such as those on biodiversity, are key to developing a truly sustainable adaptation programme and will be given due consideration in cross-cutting work on adapting to climate change. For example, we are already working with out statutory environment advisers Natural England and the Environment Agency on the risk assessment and the statutory guidance.
Although amendment No. 80 raises the important issue of sustainable development, I do not accept that that issue needs to be put in the Bill. We must maintain flexibility, and any list needs to be developed in consultation with stakeholders and the chair of the sub-committee.
Government amendment No. 14 proposes to amend clause 37 by adding that the Committee on Climate Change, with the sub-committee’s help, must provide any further advice on adaptation issues that may be requested by the Secretary of State or any of the devolved Administrations. The committee is a UK-wide body and adaptation issues will vary in different countries. It is important that the devolved Administrations make proper use of the expertise that the committee and sub-committee can provide.
Having established an adaptation sub-committee through Government amendment No. 10, we have also tabled a series of amendments, Government amendments Nos. 11, 15, 16, 17 and 18, which tidy up some of the governance arrangements on the provision of information, guidance and directions to the Committee on Climate Change. They mirror the existing provisions around the mitigation functions of the committee.

Martin Horwood: I suppose that it was inevitable that in accepting the establishment of an adaptation sub-committee, which we welcome, the Government would wish to substitute their own wording for that used by the House of Lords. I am somewhat concerned that the competencies that were detailed by our noble Friends and neighbours have been removed in the Government’s wording, and I am not sure that I understand the logic. Once again, the Government have simply transferred something specific in the Bill into a good intention. That seems to be a rather pointless exercise, especially as it removes the wording that our amendment No. 80 seeks to add.
We want to add to the list of competencies for the ASC the concept of sustainable development. That issue has already been discussed in this Committee, but our feeling is that there is a slight risk that a complete list of the various competencies, including ecology, science, public health and risk management, might be rather less than the sum of its parts, and that it is important to impress upon the ASC during its establishment the need to bring the different strands together.
Let me give an example that shows how there might be a temptation, in adaptation in particular, to take a more short-term view than the main committee. Flood risk is something that I, as a Gloucestershire MP, am aware of and consider important. However, in certain circumstances, dealing with it could lead to a large amount of civil engineering and substantial defensive work that is consistent with risk management, which is one of the other competencies on the list, but might be an inappropriate and unsustainable response to an evolving climate pattern—in fact, it might contribute more carbon emissions than it prevents.
We seek to insert the words “sustainable development” in the list to ensure that the group as a whole takes a holistic approach, and that the ASC in particular respects Gro Harlem Brundtland’s original request that the principles of sustainable development be reflected in policy around the world.

Gregory Barker: Good morning, Mr. Cook. Adaptation is often seen as the Cinderella of the climate change agenda, and the advocates of a robust and ambitious adaptation strategy often feel that they are crowded out of the debate by those who are concerned only with the threat of climate change and solutions to it. Unfortunately, we cannot choose between a climate change strategy that focuses on the solutions and adaptation. The science tells us that climate change is inevitable; it is just a matter of whether we can hold back the most dangerous consequences of man-made climate change. Therefore, adaptation is vital.
There are those who would argue that adaptation ought to be central to the Climate Change Committee’s remit and that giving it to a sub-committee somehow makes it a junior, or lesser, part of the agenda. Some would say that we are trying to pigeonhole the adaptation agenda at a rank below that which it ought to occupy.
I understand those concerns, but I do not agree with them. Their lordships in the other place were right to establish the ASC, because it will require a slightly different skills set from the one that may be present on the committee, which will be of a relatively limited size.
We have pushed for an enlarged committee, but the Government did not accept that. Given that there will be a relatively small number of experts on that panel, it is right that the sub-committee should have a clear adaptation focus. As important as a robust, ambitious adaptation strategy is, a clear communication strategy is needed, too, so that it is not sidelined in the public debate.
We Conservatives have no substantive problems with any of the amendments tabled on the ASC. However, it is necessary to ask the Minister just to clarify a couple of points. In respect of the Government’s amendment to schedule 1(16), will she explain why the national authorities should appoint the ASC chair, when it is meant to be a non-political appointment? No such requirement existed in the original provision. Why did the Government feel it necessary to make that significant change?
The hon. Member for Cheltenham has made some sensible points about amendment No. 80. I am happy to say that I support the inclusion of the words “sustainable development” in the required expert criteria for prospective ASC members. We have already had the debate about the importance of sustainable development and the need for an accurate, clear definition.

Martin Horwood: I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman’s support. Is he aware that the Environmental Audit Committee also supports, and indeed recommended, this change?

Gregory Barker: Indeed. That helped to inform our thinking. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the EAC, on taking up its recommendation and tabling it in an amendment. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments about sustainability, except to say that the hon. Gentleman is right that it should be included in the Bill. It is vital that sustainability criteria are included in the planning for mitigation and adaptation policies. Thus it makes eminently good sense to include persons with expertise in sustainable development on the ASC. I support the Liberal Democrat amendment and Government amendments Nos. 11 to 18. Linking the ASC to the reporting requirements on climate change impacts and adaptation in clauses 36, 40 and 41 seems eminently sensible, and it is a necessary joining up of related appropriate powers in the Bill.

Joan Ruddock: The hon. Member for Cheltenham has said that we are removing specific competencies. As I said in my opening remarks, however, adaptation is a wide subject. If we were to include all the competencies that might be desirable, the list would be extraordinarily long and in no way adequate, even if we were to accept his amendment and leave the other items on the list in place. Including expertise in international development on the list, for example, would not be appropriate in terms of the ASC, which deals with adaptation in the UK. Furthermore, considering public health, for instance, we could argue that wider public welfare includes much more than public health. There are criticisms of the list as it stands, let alone with the addition of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment.

Martin Horwood: I am astonished by the Minister’s comments about international development. Clearly, the most enormous impacts in terms of adaptation and climate change will affect the poorest countries in the world, which has profound implications for British Government policy through the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Surely, this area of expertise links to the climate science and many other areas on the list, which are vital.

Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman’s argument about impacts is, of course, correct. Through the Department for International Development, the Government are extremely active in supporting developing countries in tackling their adaptation needs. That is quite different from the needs of the membership of the ASC, which deals with adaptation in the UK itself.
My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and I have been at pains in Committee to indicate the way in which sustainable development is embedded across Government and to point out that all Departments have duties in that respect. Any bodies that are set up, such as the adaptation sub-committee, will, of course, be bound by those principles. We have defined exactly what sustainable development means for the Committee, how the Government understands it and where it has been defined. There are sustainable action plans right across Government.
We are clear that although sustainable development is an incredibly important topic, it imbues everything that we do, and it is therefore unnecessary to place it in the list. Even if we have the most extensive list, we are only going to appoint a small number of people at the end of the day. There is therefore no way in which the individuals concerned can be people with a particular expertise in all those things. They need to be able to cover all the topics, and, because science and practice are developing, we will need to consult the person appointed as the sub-chair of the committee regarding the appointment of further members. There is no doubt that we need to proceed in a way other than that proposed by the hon. Gentleman in his amendment.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle rightly said that we cannot choose between adaptation and mitigation. We agree wholeheartedly on that point, which is why we have constructed the sub-committee in a way in which ensures that it is part of the full committee and that the linkage is there. That is the way in which we expect to proceed, and we think that it is the right way.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle has asked why national authorities should appoint the sub-committee chair. That is because we need to work with the devolved Administrations. It is important that the consultation on these appointments is done in conjunction with the devolved Administrations, which is why the decision will involve them. He discussed and welcomed our other amendments, and I am grateful for his support.

Martin Horwood: I am not hugely impressed by the Government’s response to amendment No. 80 and to their own amendments. The Minister has said that the list of competencies for an adaptation sub-committee would be enormously long—well, it would be exactly as long as the list in front of us in the Bill. I do not think their lordships plucked that list out of thin air, and we are seeking only to add one competence.
Joan Ruddockrose—

Martin Horwood: I will not give way because I am drawing my remarks to a close. I accept that we will have difficulty persuading the Government on this point.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 11, in schedule 1, page 48, line 24, at end insert—
‘( ) section [Advice of Committee on Climate Change on impact report] (advice on report on impact of climate change), or
( ) section [Reporting on progress in connection with adaptation] (reporting on progress in connection with adaptation).’.—[Joan Ruddock.]

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33

Advice on level of 2050 target

Steve Webb: I beg to move amendment No. 102, in clause 33, page 17, line 10, leave out ‘December’ and insert ‘November’.
This apparently innocuous amendment is designed to have a profound impact on the process of the Bill.

Joan Walley: One month to save the world.

Steve Webb: One month to save the world is precisely right.
What difference does it make if the month is December or November? During the Bill’s progress through the House, changes have been made to the version seen in the Lords. When this House has completed its deliberations, the Bill will go back to another place and, I speculate, it will return to us. It therefore seems inevitable that the proceedings will not be completed until October or November. Clause 33 currently requires the Committee on Climate Change to report on 1 December, so we could still be debating the Bill, and the target, in early November. The long title says that this Bill is “to set a target”—that is the first thing that it seeks to do.
We have had lengthy debates in Committee about what that target should be and on what basis and, during the course of the debate, it struck me that the comments made by the hon. Member for Bury, North were characteristically profound. If we could arrange to have the benefit of the Committee on Climate Change’s assessment while the Bill is still live, we could address the official Opposition’s legitimate concern that that committee’s standing should not be undermined by our second-guessing it. If the committee had to report by 1 November, while the Bill is still live, we would know what it thought and could decide whether to put the number that it suggests in the Bill.
Suppose that, on 1 November, the Committee on Climate Change comes up with a number—80 per cent., for example, although it could be anything. The official Opposition, who have said that they will abide by the committee’s advice, would be happy to put that figure in the Bill. We would be happy to do so, as we have already indicated, and the position of Government Members who signed the amendment on 80 per cent. that we considered earlier in our proceedings would be strengthened, as they would be able to see the latest scientific assessment agreed by the independent committee. The question is whether the Government will accept the number suggested by the committee. Rather than passing the Bill and taking it on trust that the Government will implement that number, amendment No. 102 would allow us to know the number. In that case, the Government would make a choice, and the House would decide what it thought about that choice.
Clearly, bringing forward this important work by one month is a significant ask for the Climate Change Committee. It is right and proper that, before speaking to the amendment, I spoke to Lord Turner. I did so at the weekend, partly as a courtesy—if we are going to give him a harder task, it is only right to let him know—and partly to see what he thought. We spoke at some length. He was understandably keen not be associated with the views of any political party on such issues, and the views that I express are my own, informed by what he said but not attributable to him.
Suppose that the Committee had to produce a report on 1 December. As we know, in such cases minds are not made up on 30 November. People begin to work out what they think during the work, and they start to get an overall picture. Although the last two, three or four weeks of the committee’s work might be taken up with pretty bar charts, checking scientific references and so on, it is not unreasonable to suppose that by 1 November the committee would be in a position to advise the Government in summary about the direction of travel. On that date, it probably could not meet the requirement in clause 34, which includes a 1 December deadline, to provide detailed advice on carbon budgets, which is the nitty-gritty, because some work might still be outstanding, which is why I have not tabled an amendment to clause 34. However, the committee might be able to perform the single task set out in clause 33, which is to advise on the 2050 target.
I fully accept that these are interconnected issues. It would be naÃ¯ve to say that the committee could advise on the 2050 target without reaching a decision on international effort, aviation and shipping, or greenhouse gas lists. That is a fair point to make. However, it does not seem unreasonable that the committee might be asked to bring its recommendation forward a month. Then, when we finalise our considerations in the House, all of us will know what the committee thinks, and rather than us amateurs—speaking for myself, I am an amateur on the subject—plucking a number from the air, we will have expert opinion. That will be so much more powerful when we finalise the Bill.
There is one small practical problem with that suggestion. If the committee has to report by 1 November, as the amendment suggests, and the Bill does not come into law until later in November, technically it is not binding on the committee to produce the report by 1 November, because there is no law to say that it must do so. There is a slight problem of logic there.
Let us suspend the fiction that the committee on climate change does not exist. The committee is already out there. It does exist. I rang the man on Saturday. I spoke to the chairman of the committee. The committee is doing its work. There are people beavering away. What questions are they answering? The questions in the Bill. The Bill says what the committee has to do.
In a way, therefore, what I am calling for in the amendment is a dirty great hint, let us say, so that the shadow committee on climate change understands that the will of the House is that it reports by 1 November. If the Secretary of State or the Minister wanted to write to the committee to reinforce the dirty great hint that we wanted its opinion by 1 November, I would welcome that. Indeed, if the Minister’s reply was, “Well, forget the Bill, I’ll write to them and tell them to do it anyway”, I would welcome that too.
I will not labour this point, as it is clear what I am trying to do. We all want to make the decision on the basis of the best evidence, and if we can have the best evidence a few weeks earlier, albeit in summary form, that would be good. I note that clause 33(5) states:
“As soon as is reasonably practicable after giving its advice...the Committee must publish that advice”.
In other words, the committee can say what it thinks the number is, perhaps with a paragraph or two of explanation.
“As soon as is reasonably practicable”,
it can do the full monty, as it were, in parliamentary terms. That seems to be the best balance that we can achieve.
I shall make one final observation, which comes back to the question, “Why specify 80 per cent. or 60 per cent. in the Bill?” I have spoken to the Minister and to the Secretary of State about the issue and I found myself in a slightly awkward position, because I realised that what I was saying to the Secretary of State sounded as though I was saying, “I don’t trust you”. I thought, “That’s not what I’m saying.” I was trying to work out what I wanted to say, because it is slightly awkward to say to someone, “I don’t trust you to do what the committee says. I don’t trust you to change the Bill.” The reason I realised that that was not what I meant to say was that I thought, “I do trust the DEFRA Ministers to want to do this, but I don’t trust the rest of Government to go along with it.” That is the important point.
So I do trust that the Minister wants the right number in the Bill, but once the climate change committee publishes its report after the passage of the Bill, if it does so, DEFRA may say, “Yes, we want 80 per cent., because it says 80 per cent. in the Bill”, and the Treasury, the Department for Transport, the Ministry responsible for housing or whoever it is may say, “Ah, but...”. That is what we are trying to deal with here.
The amendment will strengthen the hand of DEFRA, which I sincerely believe wants the right number in the Bill. It would give DEFRA a stick to beat the rest of Government with, because it will know on 1 November that the figure is 80 per cent. or whatever it is, and it will say to the rest of Government, “There is no way now that we can stop now. Parliament clearly wants either the advice of the committee or 80 per cent.”, which may coincide—Parliament may want both those things. There will be an overwhelming desire for that to happen. So, if the Minister can give us the date 1 November, or a letter to Adair Turner saying that he wants 1 November, we can achieve what I think the vast majority of us want.

Joan Walley: I support the amendment in principle. I take it to be a probing amendment. Along with many colleagues in this place, I supports the move towards at least 80 per cent. In the debate so far, we have heard many contributions about the role of the Environmental Audit Committee and its many inquiries into climate change, in respect of the recommendation of 80 per cent.
With reference to the date and whether we could have an earlier resolution of these matters, it may be helpful to tell the Committee that in the course of its deliberations the Environmental Audit Committee is keen to have a private hearing with Adair Turner, to discuss those very issues. Select Committees have an important role in trying to find a way through difficult decisions on timing and so on. I hope that such initiatives will be helpful in taking the legislation forward.

Tony Baldry: It is in everyone’s interest that we have the greatest possible consensus on the Bill because it will run for many years under Governments of all persuasions. It must be in the interest of the Government and of business managers for the advice of the Climate Change Committee to be made available before Report and Third Reading, otherwise the remaining stages of the Bill will be incredibly frustrating.
If we are not careful, the Minister’s line to take on Report and Third Reading will be the same as in Committee, and the headline out there, in the The Guardian and other newspapers, will be “Government betray 80 per cent. target”. Every single person who has taken the time and trouble to get in touch with us, to write to us, to send us postcards, such as those involved in “The Big Ask” campaign, will feel betrayed. As an Opposition MP, I will be quite happy if large numbers of people think they are being betrayed by the Government, as that will add to the increasing army of people who are frustrated with this Government’s performance. In practical terms, however, it would be good news if we could carry that constituency with us, thinking that Parliament has achieved something.
It is a matter of the Minister trying to work out with his officials a line to take. It would not be difficult for the Government to say that so far as is possible, they will try to ensure that Report and Third Reading of the Bill take place after the Climate Change Committee has given advice to Ministers. That advice could then be reflected by what the Government say on Report and Third Reading, not least by what they say to the House about how much attention they will pay to the advice of the Climate Change Committee. In that way, we would know what the Climate Change Committee has to say and how much regard the Government will pay to that advice. Otherwise, we will have a frustrating Report and Third Reading and the likely victims of that frustration will be not the Opposition, but the Government and the Government’s supporters.

Gregory Barker: All the contributors so far have spoken sensibly, and the amendment is well intentioned and reasonable. The hon. Member for Northavon put his finger on it when he said that the Committee does not doubt that the ministerial team would like the amendment to be made, but there is a widespread sneaking suspicion that the enthusiasm and commitment of the DEFRA Ministers to an effective policy is not shared by the rest of the Government. We have a Prime Minister who perhaps does not get it in the same way as his predecessor did. He is more battered by expediency and is inclined to take all matters into consideration and dither when confronted with hard decisions. [Hon. Members: “Ah”] Well, the record of the past 12 months speaks for itself, but this is hardly the place to debate that.

Linda Gilroy: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read the Prime Minister’s speech to the low carbon economy summit on 26 June.

Gregory Barker: I have not, but I have seen what the Prime Minister has and has not done over the past 12 months. However, I do not want to be drawn into discussing the Prime Minister’s record.

Frank Cook: Order. For the moment, let us confine our attention to amendment No. 102.

Gregory Barker: It would greatly help to inform the debate and the decision-making process later in the year if we had access to the committee’s views. Opposition Front-Bench members hold to the position that the critical decision to set the target should be taken on the basis of the committee’s informed opinion, and it would make eminent sense to move forward by one month the date on which the committee must advise the Secretary of State on the resetting of the 2050 target. I have not spoken to Adair Turner, but there are concerns that by truncating the process, we might limit the scope of the committee’s considerations or place on it an unwanted additional burden.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Northavon, and I am willing to take at face value what he said about his discussion with Lord Turner, without attributing anything directly to the committee chairman. It is important that we take into account the committee’s views, if possible. The inconvenient truth is that the Bill will not have received Royal Assent by 1 November 2008, and we worry about how to legislate for a deadline that will have passed by the time the Bill becomes law. I hope the Minister will clarify today exactly what powers the shadow Committee on Climate Change will have prior to the Bill’s enactment.
The amendment draws our attention to how slow the Government have been in taking the Bill through Parliament. If they had followed the timetable that we all expected, the Bill would have passed through both Houses and become law by the summer recess, or sooner, which would have given the Committee on Climate Change exactly six months in which to produce its report. As it stands, however, the shadow committee will be official for a number of weeks at best before it must report on the 2050 target. That situation is far from ideal, and I commend the Liberal Democrats for tabling the amendment, if for no other reason than to highlight the Government’s procrastination on such a vital piece of legislation.

David Chaytor: Allegations of betrayal have been made over the 80 per cent. target, but yesterday both Opposition parties had an opportunity to make an important contribution to the achievement of that target. They could have supported the application of the new variable vehicle excise duty system to the existing vehicle fleet, but refused to do so. In discussing the importance of that target, we must recognise the need to support the mechanisms and policies that will achieve it, and not just make vague gestures endorsing the target itself.
Although I am slightly aggrieved that the Liberal Democrats have stolen my intellectual copyright, the amendment has some merit and I hope the Minister will respond sympathetically. My comments on Tuesday did not refer only to bringing forward the date of the full report, but left open the option of an interim report. Furthermore, I do not think that 1 November is the only date that could be considered for either the full or the interim report.

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North speaks with characteristic profundity, to quote the hon. Member for Northavon. I will remind him of that on future amendments.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Northavon, who has helped the Committee. He talked to the Secretary of State, giving notice of his intention, and credited my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North in that conversation. The hon. Member for Northavon has also talked to the chairman of the shadow committee to see what is possible. Let me try to help the Committee in two ways—to echo you, Mr. Cook, the good news and the bad news. I think that the good news outweighs the bad news, unlike your news, Mr. Cook—we will miss you this afternoon.

Frank Cook: Flattery will get you everywhere.

Phil Woolas: That is what it says in the brief.
I shall help the Committee by quoting subsection (3):
“The Committee must give its advice under this section before 1st December 2008.”
When we put the figure in, we were not in the position that we are in now—we did not know when Report and Third Reading would be. Indeed, the suggestion by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle on the alleged delay would have made the problem worse. Pragmatically, we felt that a requirement to provide advice before December gives sufficient time.
As has been said, at the moment the committee is a shadow one. In accordance with the conventions of Parliament, the committee can spend taxpayers’ money, because the Bill has had Second Reading. However, anything that the committee does before it is vested has no legal import. Therefore, the advice itself, and the relationship of the Government and Parliament to that advice, is not based in statute—our Bill—until the committee has been vested, which cannot take place until the Bill has received Royal Assent. I had hoped that I would get credit for what I thought was beautiful tapestry with the date, because 1 December is the day before the Queen’s Speech—I thought that that would be obvious, but it clearly was not. Seriously, the date means before 1 December, and I am more than happy to make that clear to the shadow committee and its chair.
Secondly, advice on the 2° target and what we may be able to do under our Bill is in the interests of Parliament, and I have given a commitment to seek advice and to take a decision on that. Having interim advice on, for example, the long-term target would clearly benefit Parliament and deliberations on Third Reading and Report. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle was cruel to my leader, saying that he has been “battered by expediency”, although I point to last night’s vote for a case of battering with expediency. However, I will keep away from partisan points.
If we were simply acting expediently, we would accept the point of the hon. Member for Banbury and agree with the amendment. The person whose life would be easiest as a result would be my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—or mine and my hon. Friend’s. Seriously, if we were to pass the amendment as it stands at the moment, the committee would still not be based on statute, because of the lack of Royal Assent. We have to remember that the committee does not legally exist.

Gregory Barker: Is anyone really saying that they will not accept the advice of the committee, if the committee does not legally exist? Surely what we want in Parliament, and what the public wants, is the advice of the committee. We do not want some technical, legal assurance that the committee exists in statute. We want to know the advice of those wise men—[Interruption.]—and women. It is not the legal definition, but the opinion of that group of experts that we seek.

Phil Woolas: I understand the political point that is being made—of course I do—but I am seeking to defend the status of law. Opposition Members have said that it is not DEFRA Ministers whom they do not trust, but the rest of the Government. One cannot knowingly table an amendment to instruct a committee that does not exist, because it would have no status in law. Clearly, if the committee were able to make public its views and its interim advice, if we can use that phrase, it would have a huge policy import. However, all the debates that we had on Tuesday about the relationships between the committee and the Government, and the Government and Parliament, would mean nothing. It would be a Del Boy clause.

Tony Baldry: As the Minister probably gathered, no one particularly wants this amendment, but we want an undertaking from the Minister that he will write an elegant letter to the chair of the shadow Committee explaining that we would like this advice before Report and Third Reading. It is very simple. What we really want to hear from the Minister is how he gets off the hook. The most shocking thing that I have heard today is the idea of a Liberal spokesman rampaging across the machinery of government speaking to chairs of shadow committees. The Minister should get a grip on this, and we will not have the Liberals interfering in the machinery of government, which they have absolutely no place to do. That is the most shocking thing about all this. If the Minister can get a grip on the matter, and ensure that by the time that we come to Report and Third Reading, we can elegantly deal with without anyone feeling betrayed, it would be really wonderful.

Phil Woolas: I will take the hon. Gentleman’s sound advice. I have tried to answer him and give him the undertaking that he needs by pointing out the clause’s reference to “before 1 December”, and I undertake formally to bring that to the attention of the chairman of the shadow Committee.
Large numbers of hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that we should do what is being said. I do not see this as a partisan point. I am sure that there will be those who say that if we are able to do this, the Government are caving in under pressure. There is a range of views on this, and it is wrong to say that it is the members of the Government who are looking for a way out of this. It was the Prime Minister in his speech in November who put the question before us.

Steve Webb: We are grateful for what we have just heard. Would the Minister be willing—I cannot think why he would not—to place in the Library of the House a copy of the letter that he sends to the chairman of the Committee?

Phil Woolas: Yes. Like, I hope, all my letters, that letter will be elegant.

Nick Hurd: I have listened very carefully to the Minister’s argument, which appears to be rooted exclusively in issues of law. He has not mentioned to the Committee any concerns about practicality or pressure. Can we take it that his understanding is that the November deadline will not create practical problems?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is astute. I have not used those arguments, because the answer is that I do not know. When we looked at the timing, we judged that before 1 December, which is a Monday, was reasonable. I do not know the answer, and I do not know for sure the view of the chairman on the question whether making an interim report, or some such advice, public would separate the long-term goals from the medium-tern goals. In my view, is possible to do that, but I do not know whether that is the chairman’s view.

Nick Hurd: If the Minister’s position is rooted in honest ignorance, may I make a suggestion? One of my concerns about practicalities is that the committee will have another extremely important job to do by 1 December, which is to pass comment on not one but three carbon budgets. Those are incredibly important judgments to make, so I am a little puzzled why there is such a hard line on 1 December. Is there room for some flexibility?

Phil Woolas: The answer concerns the relationship between that advice and the Chancellor’s Budget in March, if one sees the beautiful tapestry. There will be the pre-Budget report, the advice and then, of course, the Budget. Remembering that the pre-Budget report is a consultation, the committee’s advice will dovetail with those events. The key words are “before 1st December”.
To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, the Bill creates the committee. The Secretary of State will make a commencement order to bring the committee into existence before its advice is given, but, obviously, that can happen only after Royal Assent. Ahead of that date, the committee cannot legally exercise any of the legal functions that the Bill grants it, which is the formal legal position.
I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Member for Northavon. His point is helpful to the good sense of the debate in Parliament and consequently to the Government —I nearly said “for once”, but that would be unfair.

Steve Webb: The debate has been very constructive, despite my amendment being called the Del Boy amendment and being accused of rampaging across the machinery of government.
Let me state my understanding of what the Minister has said. He has emphasised that the law requires the matter to be dealt with before 1 December, which does not necessarily mean that date, and he has undertaken to write to the chair of the committee and to publish that letter. I understand and hope that that letter will make explicit reference to the parliamentary timetable and the advantage to Parliament of receiving an interim indication of the committee’s thinking prior to our further deliberations.

Phil Woolas: My emphasis was on drawing attention to the words “before 1st December” in clause 33(3), and on pointing out the parliamentary timetable.

Steve Webb: That is very helpful. On the basis of those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I am disappointed that we will be deprived of your tender stewardship for the remaining stages of the Committee, Mr. Cook.
Let me press the Minister for clarification on three points. I do not want this to turn into the war of the Select Committees, but the excellent report of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the draft Bill raised certain points about the committee’s powers under clause 33, the resources available to it, its independence and the duty on the Government to accept its advice. The Select Committee clearly stated in paragraph 85:
“The Committee on Climate Change should not be a policy-making or delivery body. It should be focussed on the provision of advice...but it must not be prevented from advising the Government on any policy matters that may come to its attention while carrying out its duties.”
Paragraph 86 states:
“In order to establish the independence of the Committee on Climate Change, the Secretary of State should be required to accept its recommendations without further debate.”
The Committee concluded that that would place
“the Committee’s advice alongside that of the Monetary Policy Committee whose interest rate decisions are not challengeable by the Chancellor of the Exchequer except under very extreme circumstances.”
In paragraph 88, the Committee stated:
“We do not see that the Bill prevents the Committee on Climate Change from recommending the mid- and long-term targets, but it is not clear that the Committee will have this power. We recommend that by 2009 the Committee should review and recommend to the Secretary of State what the 2020 and 2050 target should be... In addition, the Committee should have the power and responsibility to make recommendations to the Secretary of State at any time regarding the mid- and long-term targets.”
The Committee went on to consider what resources there should be. In response to the earlier amendment, the Minister said that, legally, the committee does not exist. However, it is currently being resourced in shadow form and the resources will go up incrementally as the committee takes legal effect.
In paragraph 101, the Select Committee states:
“It is imperative that the staff and information resources available to the Committee on Climate Change are completely independent of Government. We recommend that independent consultants be asked by the Government to recommend the correct level of resources available to the Committee in order to establish that it is properly resourced.”
I do not see any opportunity in the later stages of the Bill to discuss the important matter of resources. Usually such discussion takes place in one of the debates on the schedules, but I see no reference to resources in schedule 1. Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State will be obliged to follow the advice? We have established that the advice will be published and debated. Will the Secretary of State be obliged to follow that advice? Are we satisfied that the committee will be independent of Government, and can the Minister convince us that the resources available to the committee to perform its functions are adequate for its task?

Phil Woolas: I thank the hon. Lady, who was reporting the findings of the Select Committee, some of which go beyond clause 33. If I may, Mr. Cook, I will respond accordingly, in the spirit of the Select Committee.

Frank Cook: If it is pertinent.

Phil Woolas: Thank you, Mr. Cook.
As the committee is a NDPB, the rules governing it are covered by those governing NDPBs. That is why schedule 1, which relates to some of the administrative matters pertaining to the committee, is not as comprehensive as it might be. The committee draws its accountability rules from NDPBs.
I refer to the Government’s response to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the Command Paper published last October, “Taking Forward the UK Climate Change Bill: The Government Response to Pre-Legislative Scrutiny and Public Consultation”. That is why the relationship between the committee, its advice and the Government is as it was laid out in our debate on clauses 1 and 2. It is advice that can be rejected, and that is how an NDPB operates. The advice is public. The transparency that the Committee also recommended is important in meeting some of its objections.
Lord Turner appeared before the Select Committee in March. He stated:
“It is the role of our Committee certainly to consider the range of policies which are in place and the effectiveness of those policies because without that we cannot recommend what is a credible budget. There is no point in us simply saying we think the budget by 2020 should be X,Y and Z without being able to tell a story of a credible path from here to there.”
I hope that helps.
On resources, I am certainly not the most experienced Minister, but I am experienced enough to know that whatever is granted is never enough. Please do not quote that out of context. However, Lord Turner, who is the chairman of the Climate Change Committee, told the EFRA Committee that he thought that the resources were adequate for the job in hand. Of course, that will have to be reviewed.
The size of the secretariat is important. Again, Lord Turner confirmed when he gave evidence to the Select Committee in March that he was satisfied with the arrangements. However, I am mindful that the size and shape of the secretariat will need to be regularly reviewed as the work of the committee progresses.
Further to what I described as a beautiful tapestry, I draw the attention of the Committee to the work of the UK climate impact programme, which will have a significant bearing on the debate. If it creates surprises and projections that cause us to readdress the science, I may need to review the resources that are available to the committee. That is far outside the remit of clause 33, but it might be helpful.
I cannot go into detail on all the questions, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vale of York for reporting for the Select Committee. We have representation on the Public Bill Committee from both the main Select Committees. That was a wise decision on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden. I point out that DEFRA is currently subject to 28 different Select Committee inquiries.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34

Advice in connection with carbon budgets

Joan Ruddock: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in clause 34, page 18, line 6, leave out subsection (5).

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment No. 19
Government amendment No. 20
Government new clause 3—Advice of Committee on Climate Change on impact report.

Joan Ruddock: As has been noted, we believe an adaptation sub-committee of the Climate Change Committee would have a useful role, but we think that it should be a more technical one in line with the rest of the work of the committee.
The committee’s role on adaptation should be consistent with its work on mitigation; that is, it should involve technical advice and analysis, and scrutiny of progress. That means that it should provide technical advice to the Government and the devolved Administrations on the risk assessment, and progress reports to Parliament about the Government’s adaptation programme.
The other place agreed that the committee should not be a policy-making body. Many sensitive decisions will have to be taken in order for us to reduce our emissions and adapt to climate change. They properly should be taken by elected representatives in Parliament and in the Government. The committee will have a vital role in providing impartial advice and scrutiny, but we do not think it appropriate for an unelected body to make, or be seen to be making, policies. The individual decisions that will directly affect families, communities and businesses should be made by Parliament and the Government.
With that in mind, Government amendments Nos. 12, 19 and 20 delete the current roles of the sub-committee, and Government new clause 3 gives new functions to the main committee. The new clause sets out the first new function that we are giving to the committee, which is to give advice on the risk assessment required in clause 55. Expert input to the risk assessment will help to strengthen the evidence base that will underpin the Government’s adaptation programme. Independent review will add to the transparency of the assessment and, therefore, the basis upon which the programme is built.
The committee’s role will be to provide expert advice on the preparation of the risk assessment to ensure that it is as robust as possible. That is wholly in line with the committee’s wider role, which is highly technocratic and focused on specialist advice on carbon budgets. With the committee advising on the risk assessment, we do not see the need for specific provision to be made giving the Environmental Audit Committee an additional role in this area. For that reason, we tabled Government amendment No. 20, which would remove the duty currently in the Bill requiring the Government to invite the EAC to review the risk assessment. The EAC will still be free to look at the adaptation work, or any other area of work, should it chose to do so. Indeed, it has already considered adaptation as part of its work on climate change and local and regional government.
For the Government to ask a parliamentary Committee to consider a particular piece of work would be an anomaly in the Bill because it could be seen to interfere with the EAC’s independence. We expect that the advice of the Committee on Climate Change, together with the likelihood of further parliamentary scrutiny, will ensure that the risk assessment is robust and transparent. We also hope that adaptation will be considered—I am sure it will be—by a wider range of parliamentary Committees, because clearly it is not simply an environmental issue, but one that will cut across all aspects of the economy and society. If we receive advice, we will be sure to make use of it, which is why we tabled Government amendment No. 19, which ensures that the Government must consider the advice of the Committee on Climate Change before laying the national climate change risk assessment before Parliament.
In conclusion, the advice on the risk assessment from the adaptation sub-committee will add value to the Government’s adaptation work and complement the committee’s wider work. It would be inappropriate for the Government to have to invite a parliamentary Committee to review its work, as the decision on whether to review should be a matter for that Committee itself.

Gregory Barker: This is a complex and intertwined group of amendments, and it would be beneficial to seek clarification from the Minister on a few points. As the Bill stands, the Committee on Climate Change has reporting duties to Parliament on the Government’s progress on adaptation and mitigation. However, the Government’s amendments will remove the committee’s reporting duties on progress towards adaptation, which means that there would be no requirement on the adaptation sub-committee to scrutinise Government performance and to report to Parliament on its findings. If I have interpreted the proposal correctly, I find it worrying, and would appreciate assurances from the Minister that the role of the independent committee is not being watered down.
Under the amendments, the adaptation sub-committee will have a far more nebulous role in adaptation scrutiny reporting, particularly when compared with the clear scrutiny functions of the Committee on Climate Change itself on mitigation.

Joan Ruddock: We will come on to the progress reporting function in the next group of amendments, which is why I did not deal with that before.

Gregory Barker: I accept the Minister’s point, so I shall withhold further comments on that until we get to later amendments. Will she explain why the Government have proposed what seems to be a more muted role for the adaptation sub-committee, and how she envisages the sub-committee adding value to the Government’s work, if it does not have any powers or obligations on formal scrutiny and reporting on the progress to the Government?
I was not fully persuaded by the Minister’s explanation why, under amendment No. 20, the Government want to remove the duty on the Secretary of State to invite the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee to review every report on adaptation that is laid before Parliament. I am sure the Committee will be interested in the views of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North before reaching a decision about that. I hope she will give us the benefit of her thoughts and those of her fellow Committee members.

Joan Walley: I have been tempted to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, who is well versed in the work of the EAC. Select Committees play an important role, and I should like him to comment on what the Minister has said, because it put the work of Select Committees in a wider context. The purpose of the EAC is to look at all Government policies across the piece, but I am also aware that other Select Committees have an interest in such matters and therefore consider that there is much worth in the Government’s amendments.

Gregory Barker: That was a helpful intervention, and many people who might have been worried by the wording of the amendments will take comfort from it. The hon. Lady is known for her significant input into the EAC and the valuable work that she and the Committee do. If she is comfortable with the amendments, it makes me much more comfortable, too. They are slightly complex, but not controversial, so I accept the Minister’s reassurances about them.

Martin Horwood: I am not sure whether I am quite so reassured as the hon. Gentleman, so I shall seek a little more reassurance.
The group of amendments is slightly odd. It covers two different sections of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 and new clause 3 relate to impact and risk assessment, but only amendment No. 12 deals specifically with the adaptation sub-committee’s remit to provide expert advice and, as I understand it, that is being deleted and not reinserted into the Bill under any other clause.
When referring to adaptation, we are talking not about hypothetical targets in decades to come that are conveniently distant from the current political debate, but about the action that is required now. I take the Minister’s point that the adaptation sub-committee should not be a policy-making body in the sense that it should take powers away from Ministers or Parliament, but nothing in the clause suggests that. The reference is to expert advice. That could be relevant to the flood risk management budget and whether, in technical terms, the amount being spent by the Government is sufficient to keep ahead of the impacts of flood risk.
The committee could cover health and whether the NHS has the right technical planning in place to cope with new diseases that arise as a result of climate change and that did not previously reach people in this country and latitudes, or whether there is enough technical planning for heat waves of the sort that hit the continent only a few years ago. It could examine transport infrastructure and whether it can cope with not only the right sort of snow, but the right flood water, the right heat and the other possible impacts. They would be very technical matters.
With such a report, the temptation for the relevant Departments—which, again, will not be the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but the Department for Transport, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department of Health—to be derailed into short-term political considerations will be huge. Subsection (5), which amendment No. 12 would delete, is an important counterweight to that short-termism. It will provide independent, expert advice based on scientific and technical knowledge—not policy, as the Minister suggested—and it is bizarre that the Government accept the need for an adaptation sub-committee, yet run scared from seeking its full-blooded advice.
Amendment No. 20 would remove the provision in respect of the EAC. The EAC considered the Bill and was quite happy to have the duty laid upon it, so I do not see the logic for removing it. We can probably assume that the EAC or its successor Committee would, almost automatically, want to scrutinise such reports and measures, but proactively to take this provision out of the Bill sends a rather strange signal that could be misinterpreted.

Joan Walley: As a member of the EAC, does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, the Committee has that role in any case by virtue of its status in Parliament?

Martin Horwood: I accept what the hon. Lady says, but that is a voluntary responsibility to be interpreted by the Committee. The provision would be a more stringent condition that might, in the end, have the same effect—I accept that—but I am more concerned about the signal that its removal would send; it might be interpreted wrongly as the Government’s seeking to wriggle out of the glare of proper scrutiny. I do not see the need for it to be removed in that way.

Joan Ruddock: The comments made by the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle and for Cheltenham show that there is a degree of confusion. It is clear that the Government are certainly not trying to avoid scrutiny, because we have tabled new clause 3 this morning, which says:
“It is the duty of the Committee on Climate Change to advise the Secretary of State on the preparation of each of the Secretary of State’s reports under section 55.”
Of course, that relates to the impact assessment. So it is clear that we are giving new duties to the Climate Change Committee—along with the work being done by the sub-committee—which will report to the Government in advance of their presenting their risk assessments. It is clear we are giving the Committee that role to give specific technical advice, which it is experienced in preparing, in advance of the Government’s producing their risk assessment report.

Martin Horwood: New clause 3 relates to impact and risk assessment. Pages 25 and 26 of the Bill contain two separate clauses with two logically separate areas of advice: clause 55 deals with impact and risk assessment and clause 56 is on adaptation under the Secretary of State’s programme. The technical advice on impact assessment is contained in clause 34(5), which would be deleted by amendment No. 12 and is not reinserted by new clause 3 or any other Government amendment.

Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman needs to wait until we move to the next group of amendments. The role that we are giving to the Climate Change Committee is clear, from the advice stated in new clause 3, and I can add nothing to what I have said.
On amendment No. 20, again, the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that a signal could be given. It is clear to us that saying that one Select Committee should have the role weakens scrutiny. We have given the scrutiny role to the Climate Change Committee, which will be advising on the risk assessment. We are more than aware that the EAC makes its own decisions and will continue to do so, as will other Select Committees. That is the proper role of a Select Committee in Parliament.

Martin Horwood: I am sorry to press the Minister on this matter, but we are discussing new clause 3 now, in this group of amendments, and nowhere does it mention adaptation.

Joan Ruddock: The risk assessment is clearly the precursor of any programme for adaptation. The Climate Change Committee is being given this duty to advise on the risk assessments that the Government are preparing.

Martin Horwood: I am sorry to press the Minister further, but why, in that case, do we have separate clauses: one for impact and risk assessment and another—clause 56—for adaptation? They are not the same.

Joan Ruddock: I am looking to see whether I may receive some advice on this matter. Our amendments, including our new clause, are clear to me. Clause 55 is in part 4, which is called “Impact of and adaptation to climate change”.

It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at One o’clock.